Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of Active Back-Support Exoskeleton During Manual Load-Lifting Tasks

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Manual material handling (MMH) tasks are the main causes of injuries and work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the industry. For preventing such disorders, several exoskeletons have been introduced to assist workers in performing MMH tasks. This study investigates the effect of an active back-support exoskeleton on muscle activity and analyzes its ergonomic effects.

Methods

A custom-made active back-support exoskeleton consisting of two joints (lumber and hip) and three links (trunk, pelvis, and thigh) was used in this study. The ergonomic effect of this exoskeleton on manual load-lifting tasks was investigated by (1) analyzing the muscle activities of the lumbar erector spinae (LES) and upper trapezius using electromyography; (2) conducting the timed up and go (TUG) test; and (3) evaluating the subjective aspect (perceived discomfort). Eighteen healthy subjects participated in the experiment by performing load-lifting tasks and undergoing the TUG test. Thereafter, their perceived discomfort was assessed using the Borg scale.

Results

Significant differences were observed with and without the exoskeleton in the (1) root mean squares of the right LES (p = 0.006) and left LES (p < 0.001), (2) time spent in the TUG test (p < 0.001), and (3) perceived exertion level (p < 0.001). The active back-support exoskeleton used in this study was effective in reducing muscle activity and risk related to the LES during manual load-lifting; however, problems regarding its usability arose because of its weight.

Conclusion

The exoskeleton evaluated in this study can aid in reducing the load on the lumbar spine of workers by decreasing the muscle activity of the LES. From the usability perspective, users spent more time performing the tasks and perceived higher exertion levels while wearing the exoskeleton.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hoogendoorn, W. E., Bongers, P.M., De Vet, H.C., Douwes, M., Koes, B.W., Miedema, M.C., Ariëns, G.A., & Bouter, L.M. (2000). Flexion and rotation of the trunk and lifting at work are risk factors for low back pain: Results of a prospective cohort study. Spine, 25(23), 3087–3092.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Norman, R., Wells, R., Neumann, P., Frank, J., Shannon, H., Kerr, M., & Study, T. O. U. B. P. (1998). A comparison of peak vs cumulative physical work exposure risk factors for the reporting of low back pain in the automotive industry. Clinical Biomechanics, 13(8), 561–573.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Waters, T. (1993). Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting task. Ergonomics, 2, 171–173.

    Google Scholar 

  4. E Eurostat. (2010). Health and safety at work in Europe—A statistical portrait: Data 1999–2007. Luxembourg: European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang, T., & Huang, H. (2018). A lower-back robotic exoskeleton: Industrial handling augmentation used to provide spinal support. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 25(2), 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  6. De Looze, M. P., Bosch, T., Krause, F., Stadler, K. S., & O’Sullivan, L. W. (2016). Exoskeletons for industrial application and their potential effects on physical work load. Ergonomics, 59(5), 671–681.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lazzaroni, M., Toxiri, S., Ortiz, J., De Momi, E., & Caldwell, D. (2018). Towards standards for the evaluation of active back-support exoskeletons to assist lifting task. In Sixth international congress of bioengineering.

  8. Toxiri, S., Näf, M.B., Lazzaroni, M., Fernández, J., Sposito, M., Poliero, T., Monica, L., Anastasi, S., Caldwell, D.G., & Ortiz, J. (2019). Back-support exoskeletons for occupational use: An overview of technological advances and trends. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 7(3–4), 237–249.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Grazi, L., Chen, B., Lanotte, F., Vitiello, N., & Crea, S. (2019). Towards methodology and metrics for assessing lumbar exoskeletons in industrial applications. In 2019 II workshop on metrology for industry 4.0 and IoT (MetroInd4. 0&IoT) (pp. 400–404). IEEE.

  10. Bosch, T., van Eck, J., Knitel, K., & de Looze, M. (2016). The effects of a passive exoskeleton on muscle activity, discomfort and endurance time in forward bending work. Applied Ergonomics, 54, 212–217.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lanotte, F., Grazi, L., Chen, B., Vitiello, N., & Crea, S. (2018). A low-back exoskeleton can reduce the erector spinae muscles activity during freestyle symmetrical load lifting tasks. In 2018 7th IEEE international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics (Biorob) (pp. 701–706). IEEE.

  12. Koopman, A. S., Kingma, I., Faber, G. S., de Looze, M. P., & van Dieën, J. H. (2019). Effects of a passive exoskeleton on the mechanical loading of the low back in static holding tasks. Journal of Biomechanics, 83, 97–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Koopman, A. S., Toxiri, S., Power, V., Kingma, I., van Dieën, J. H., Ortiz, J., & de Looze, M. P. (2019). The effect of control strategies for an active back-support exoskeleton on spine loading and kinematics during lifting. Journal of Biomechanics, 91, 14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kobayashi, H., Aida, T., & Hashimoto, T. (2009). Muscle suit development and factory application. International Journal of Automation Technology, 3(6), 709–715.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dewi, N. S., & Komatsuzaki, M. (2018). On-body personal assist suit for commercial farming: Effect on heart rate, EMG, trunk movements, and user acceptance during digging. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 68, 290–296.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hensel, R., & Keil, M. (2019). Subjective evaluation of a passive industrial exoskeleton for lower-back support: A field study in the automotive sector. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211007267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Spada, S., Ghibaudo, L., Gilotta, S., Gastaldi, L., & Cavatorta, M. P. (2017). Investigation into the applicability of a passive upper-limb exoskeleton in automotive industry. Procedia Manufacturing, 11, 1255–1262.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hussain, M., Park, J., Kim, N., Kim, H. K., Lee, J., & Lee, J. (2020). “Effects of exoskeleton robot on human posture and lumbar pressure during manual lifting tasks. ICIC Express Letters. Part B, Applications: An international Journal of Research and Surveys, 11(5), 439–445.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Huysamen, K., de Looze, M., Bosch, T., Ortiz, J., Toxiri, S., & O’Sullivan, L. W. (2018). Assessment of an active industrial exoskeleton to aid dynamic lifting and lowering manual handling tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 68, 125–131.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Groos, S., Fuchs, M., & Kluth, K. (2019). Determination of the subjective strain experiences during assembly activities using the exoskeleton “Chairless Chair”. In International conference on applied human factors and ergonomics (pp. 72–82). Springer.

  21. Kim, S., Nussbaum, M. A., Esfahani, M. I. M., Alemi, M. M., Alabdulkarim, S., & Rashedi, E. (2018). Assessing the influence of a passive, upper extremity exoskeletal vest for tasks requiring arm elevation: Part I—“Expected” effects on discomfort, shoulder muscle activity, and work task performance. Applied Ergonomics, 70, 315–322.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gillette, J. C., & Stephenson, M. L. (2019). Electromyographic assessment of a shoulder support exoskeleton during on-site job tasks. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 7, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kim, S., Nussbaum, M. A., Esfahani, M. I. M., Alemi, M. M., Jia, B., & Rashedi, E. (2018). Assessing the influence of a passive, upper extremity exoskeletal vest for tasks requiring arm elevation: Part II—“Unexpected” effects on shoulder motion, balance, and spine loading. Applied Ergonomics, 70, 323–330.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kazerooni, H., Tung, W., & Pillai, M. (2019). Evaluation of trunk-supporting exoskeleton. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 1080–1083.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Abdoli-E, M., Agnew, M. J., & Stevenson, J. M. (2006). An on-body personal lift augmentation device (PLAD) reduces EMG amplitude of erector spinae during lifting tasks. Clinical Biomechanics, 21(5), 456–465.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Frost, D. M., Abdoli-E, M., & Stevenson, J. M. (2009). PLAD (personal lift assistive device) stiffness affects the lumbar flexion/extension moment and the posterior chain EMG during symmetrical lifting tasks. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 19(6), e403–e412.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. von Glinski, A., Yilmaz, E., Mrotzek, S., Marek, E., Jettkant, B., Brinkemper, A., Fisahn, C., Schildhauer, T.A., & Geßmann, J. (2019). Effectiveness of an on-body lifting aid (HAL® for care support) to reduce lower back muscle activity during repetitive lifting tasks. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 63, 249–255.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ko, H. K., Lee, S. W., Koo, D. H., Lee, I., & Hyun, D. J. (2018). Waist-assistive exoskeleton powered by a singular actuation mechanism for prevention of back-injury. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 107, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Toxiri, S., Ortiz, J., & Caldwell, D. G. (2017). Assistive strategies for a back support exoskeleton: Experimental evaluation. In International conference on robotics in Alpe-Adria Danube Region (pp. 805–812) Springer.

  30. Toxiri, S., Calanca, A., Ortiz, J., Fiorini, P., & Caldwell, D. G. (2017). A parallel-elastic actuator for a torque-controlled back-support exoskeleton. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(1), 492–499.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Luo, Z., & Yu, Y. (2013). Wearable stooping-assist device in reducing risk of low back disorders during stooped work. In 2013 IEEE international conference on mechatronics and automation (pp. 230–236). IEEE.

  32. Conforti, I., Mileti, I., Del Prete, Z., & Palermo, E. (2020). Measuring biomechanical risk in lifting load tasks through wearable system and machine-learning approach. Sensors, 20(6), 1557.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Chaffin, D. B. (1969). A computerized biomechanical model—Development of and use in studying gross body actions. Journal of Biomechanics, 2(4), 429–441.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Delp, S. L., & Loan, J. P. (1995). A graphics-based software system to develop and analyze models of musculoskeletal structures. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 25(1), 21–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jäger, M., & Luttmann, A. (1989). Biomechanical analysis and assessment of lumbar stress during load lifting using a dynamic 19-segment human model. Ergonomics, 32(1), 93–112.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Leardini, A., Chiari, L., Della Croce, U., & Cappozzo, A. (2005). Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry: Part 3. Soft tissue artifact assessment and compensation. Gait & Posture, 21(2), 212–225.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Chaffin, D. B. (1997). Development of computerized human static strength simulation model for job design. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 7(4), 305–322.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Chaffin, D. B. (2007). Human motion simulation for vehicle and workplace design. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 17(5), 475–484.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lee, J.-W., & Kim, G. (2019). Design and control of a lifting assist device for preventing lower back injuries in industrial athletes. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, 20(10), 1825–1838.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Vallery, H., Veneman, J., Van Asseldonk, E., Ekkelenkamp, R., Buss, M., & Van Der Kooij, H. (2008). Compliant actuation of rehabilitation robots. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 15(3), 60–69.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Van Ham, R., Sugar, T. G., Vanderborght, B., Hollander, K. W., & Lefeber, D. (2009). Compliant actuator designs. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 16(3), 81–94.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ude, A., Atkeson, C. G., & Riley, M. (2004). Programming full-body movements for humanoid robots by observation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 47(2–3), 93–108.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kodama, K., Yasuda, K., & Yamagiwa, H. Relationship between degrees of freedom and adaptability or flexibility in human postural standing.

  44. Hlávková, J., Lebeda, T., Tichý, T., Gaďourek, P., Urban, P., Nakládalová, M., Laštovková, A., Fenclová, Z., Ridzoň, P., Ehler, E., & Richter, M. (2016). Evaluation of lumbar spine load by computational method in order to acknowledge low-back disorders as occupational diseases. Central European Journal of Public Health, 24(1), 58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Yoon, S.-H., Jung, M.-C., & Park, S. Y. (2016). Evaluation of surgeon’s muscle fatigue during thoracoscopic pulmonary lobectomy using interoperative surface electromyography. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 8(6), 1162.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Borg, G. A. (1982). Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 14, 377.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Naik, G. R. (2014). Applications, challenges, and advancements in electromyography signal processing. IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Troiano, A., Naddeo, F., Sosso, E., Camarota, G., Merletti, R., & Mesin, L. (2008). Assessment of force and fatigue in isometric contractions of the upper trapezius muscle by surface EMG signal and perceived exertion scale. Gait & Posture, 28(2), 179–186.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Toxiri, S., Koopman, A. S., Lazzaroni, M., Ortiz, J., Power, V., de Looze, M. P., O'Sullivan, L., & Caldwell, D. G. (2018). Rationale, implementation and evaluation of assistive strategies for an active back-support exoskeleton. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 53.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Miura, K., Kadone, H., Koda, M., Abe, T., Kumagai, H., Nagashima, K., Mataki, K., Fujii, K., Noguchi, H., Funayama, T., & Kawamoto, H. (2018). The hybrid assistive limb (HAL) for care support successfully reduced lumbar load in repetitive lifting movements. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 53, 276–279.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Arendt-Nielsen, L., Graven-Nielsen, T., Svarrer, H., & Svensson, P. (1996). The influence of low back pain on muscle activity and coordination during gait: A clinical and experimental study. Pain, 64(2), 231–240.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Roy, S. H., De Luca, C. J., & Casavant, D. A. (1989). Lumbar muscle fatigue and chronic lower back pain. Spine, 14(9), 992–1001.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. van der Hulst, M., Vollenbroek-Hutten, M. M., Rietman, J. S., & Hermens, H. J. (2010). Lumbar and abdominal muscle activity during walking in subjects with chronic low back pain: Support of the “guarding” hypothesis? Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 20(1), 31–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Cook, T. M., & Neumann, D. A. (1987). The effects of load placement on the EMG activity of the low back muscles during load carrying by men and women. Ergonomics, 30(10), 1413–1423.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Medley, A., & Thompson, M. (1997). The effect of assistive devices on the performance of community dwelling elderly on the timed up and go test. Issues Aging, 20(3), 7–44.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Marras, W. S., Davis, K. G., & Jorgensen, M. (2003). Gender influences on spine loads during complex lifting. The Spine Journal, 3(2), 93–99.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Lorme, K. J., & Naqvi, S. A. (2003). Comparative analysis of low-back loading on chiropractors using various workstation table heights and performing various tasks. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 26(1), 25–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Chaffin, D., & Page, G. (1994). Postural effects on biomechanical and psychophysical weight-lifting limits. Ergonomics, 37(4), 663–676.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The present research has been conducted by the Research Grant of Kwangwoon University in 2019.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Convergence, Kwangwoon University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Hyun K. Kim

  2. Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Incheon National University (INU), Incheon, Republic of Korea

    Muhammad Hussain & Jaehyun Park

  3. Rehabilitation Engineering Research Institute, Korea Workers’ Compensation, and Welfare Service, Incheon, Republic of Korea

    Jongwon Lee

  4. HMH Co. Ltd, Incheon, Republic of Korea

    Jin Won Lee

Authors
  1. Hyun K. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muhammad Hussain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jaehyun Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jongwon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jin Won Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaehyun Park.

Appendix: Biomechanical Analysis for Lumbar Load

Appendix: Biomechanical Analysis for Lumbar Load

Various mathematical models are available for analyzing human movements based on the joints and total mass of the human body [33,34,35,36]. Moreover, commercial software for digital human modeling has also been developed to calculate such movements [37, 38]. This study used 3DSSPP (version 6.0.6) to measure the lumbar compression force at the L4/L5 level for various tasks, such as lifting, pressing, pushing, and pulling [37, 56]. The lumbar compression force is calculated from the biomechanical model using the upper body weight, load, upper body flexion angle based on the sagittal plane, and back muscle strength in each static posture.

For the nine postures selected during the field observations, the lumbar compression force was calculated using 3DSSPP. Based on the photographs of the workers assuming the nine postures in the field, the body joint angles were simulated using the 3DSSPP program. For avoiding the subjective evaluation at this time, the body joint angle data were determined by the consensus of the four researchers who conducted the field observations.

For the anthropometric data, two different datasets were used: the American 50th percentile and the Korean 50th percentile. For the former, 175.1 cm and 83.9 kg were used, whereas 165.0 cm and 63.4 kg were used for the latter. Figure 

Fig. 8
figure 8

Examples of Three-Dimensional Static Strength Prediction model (P3)

Full size image

8 shows an example of the 3DSSPP model for P3. The human models are analyzed based on each task shown in Fig. 1, and the lumbar compression force at L4/L5 for each static posture is calculated, as summarized in Table

Table 3 Lumbar compression force during task performance: lumbar compression force (LCF)
Full size table

3. In this work, the analysis was performed using a 20-kg load equally distributed between both hands. Considering the NIOSH standards, the criterion for high-risk postures was whether the load on the lumbar spine (L4/L5) exceeded 3400 N, [43, 57]. The biomechanical analysis of the nine tasks confirmed that three (P2, P4, and P8) had high injury risks in both the American and Korean cohorts; two of them (P3 and P7) had high injury risks based on the American cohort.

The 3DSSPP analysis showed that the American workers might experience lower back injuries while lifting loads in the bending and sitting positions, whereas Korean workers might sustain injuries while lifting loads in the sitting position. Thus, the tasks in the bending (P3 and P7) and sitting (P2, P4, and P8) positions were found to require further experimental analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, H.K., Hussain, M., Park, J. et al. Analysis of Active Back-Support Exoskeleton During Manual Load-Lifting Tasks. J. Med. Biol. Eng. 41, 704–714 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-021-00644-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-021-00644-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation